Lube Control + 132 Homebrew. Opinions Wanted

[darrenc]

Molakule,

Explain to me your experience running Lube Control in conjunction with Schaeffers #132. I’m considering running Schaeffers 700 15W-40 with some LC and 132 in my Jeep. If I don’t run the 700, I’ll probably run some Amsoil AME with the same additives/supplements. What application rate would you run? Your opinion is appreciated.

Darren

 

[MolaKule]

Darrenc,

"Molakule,

Explain to me your experience running Lube Control in conjunction with Schaeffers #132. I’m considering running Schaeffers 700 15W-40 with some LC and 132 in my Jeep. If I don’t run the 700, I’ll probably run some Amsoil AME with the same additives/supplements. What application rate would you run? Your opinion is appreciated."

My original reasons for using LC and 132 were:
1.) To slightly increase viscosity for oils on the "low" side of viscosities, such as M1 SS 10W30,
2.) decrease oxidation and stabilize TBN,
3.) increase moly content and add another AW and anti-corrision additve such as Antimony DTC to lubricants that lack same.
4. Increase detergency chemistry using 132's surfactant "penetro".

IF you are going to be using Schaeffer's products, such as #700 that already has moly and penetro additives, I would not add any 132. I would use Lube Control at 3 oz. per 5 quarts for this viscosity of oil, and 1 oz. every 1,000 miles.

If you are using Amsoil AME, you could use Lube Control at 1 oz. per 5 quarts, with about 3 oz. of 132 supplement, and 1 oz. of Lube Control every 1,000 miles.

When using the #132 supplement, remove the cap, break the foil seal, replace the cap, and warm it to about 95 F in a pot of hot tap water, preferably "outside the kitchen." This makes it easier to add to oils.

Monitor oil and engine condition with Used Oil Analysis with particular emphasis on wear metals, tbn, and oxidation.

[ February 20, 2003, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[darrenc]

Thanks for the reply. Do you think this would be a worthwhile endeavor? Also, why the different application rates for the Schaeffers v. Amsoil for the LC?

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MolaKule:


My original reasons for using LC and 132 were:
1.) To slightly increase viscosity for oils on the "low" side of viscosities, such as M1 SS 10W30,

---

Why not just add a quart of 15w50 Mobil 1 to the 10w30? It's a very popular practice with the LS1 f-body owners, in order to reduce oil consumption and piston slap. 0w40 won't reduce piston slap unfortunately, since most of the problem is on a cold start, so the last thing these guys with piston slap need is a thinner oil on startup.

 

[Ken2]

Playing devil's advocate...

Why is Schaeffer #132 E.P. Oil Treatment good, and STP, Bardahl, Hy-Per-Lube, Lucas, and all the other thick snake oils bad?


Back to asking a straight question...
What is the process whereby Antimony TDC gives antiwear protection?


Ken

 

[MolaKule]

Darren,

Schaeffer's is Group I oil whereas Amsoil is synthetic.

Patman,

You could do that, but viscosity was only one consideration. It was simply a matter of taking a good oil and making it slightly better. As was discussed in other threads, Mobil 1 could be better but at a higher cost, and no one oil can be everything to everyone.

One could also argue that one could just buy some Redline, which has high VI and decent starting viscosities with plenty of moly. But you pay for what you get.

Ken2,

Most oil additives are simply solvents in a petroleum carrier oil or brightstocks with MAYBE some weak detergent additives and MAYBE a low dose of ZDDP, whereas the base for 132 is a multifunctional synthetic, and it has quality AW additives.

Antimony gives anti-oxidant, anti-corrosion protection as well as Anti-Wear capabilities similar to Moly and ZDDP. At high temps and contact pressure Moly and Antimony form plastic layers so the metals can slide past one another and not dig into one another. ZDDP does the same but at lower temps.

BTW, antimony is used in high concentrations in Marine Greases because of its great anti-oxidant and anti-corrosive capabilities.

 

[darrenc]

Patman. I’m just playing around…doing a little bit of experimenting. I’ve had great success with Amsoil in both of my vehicles, with greatly extended drain intervals, so you would think I would be satisfied. But I’m not because I have the same affliction/disease? that you and many others on this forum have.

 

[darrenc]

Molekule,

Just saw your note on heating up the 132 prior to use. Man, that stuff is thick! What is your method of measurement? What is your method of cleaning your measuring equipment?

I’ve used the 132 before, but every time I have to toss out my measuring cup because I can’t seem to clean it. Even Berrymans Chem Tool has a tough time dissolving the 132.

132 has synthetic base? Didn’t know that.

 

[MolaKule]

darrenc,

I use a 500 mL glass beaker (like in the lab). I warm up the 132 in the black bottle and
measure it out into the beaker. Once you get the beaker smeared with 132, you have to use a cloth rag or paper towel to handle it or it slips out your hand.

The only way the beaker can be cleaned is with toluene or Coleman's lantern fluid. I prefer the latter but you have to be careful since it is highly flammable. Those blue paper (shop) towels are great for drying out your beakers.

The base is a thick, synthetic surfactant that mixes well with the host oil. I use a clean quart bottle (plastic) and pour the contents of the the 132 into it and mix it with the LC. I use the contents of the plastic quart bottle for adding to the MO.

 

[darrenc]

Thanks. I never thought to use a beaker. I’ve got few of those laying around my brewery. I’ll just round to the nearest metric equivalent and use the graduation marks on the glassware. Thanks too for the tip on using the white gas.

 

[MolaKule]

Try approx. 150 mL of #132 to 50 mL of LC for each L of MO.

[ February 21, 2003, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[darrenc]

Thanks, but that’s almost 5 oz. 132/Q of MO. This seems considerably high compared to your previous recommendations of approx. 1 oz./Q. ….or am I off basis here?

[ February 21, 2003, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: darrenc ]

 

[MolaKule]

"Try approx. 150 mL of #132 to 50 mL of LC for each L of MO."

That should have read, "Try approx. 150 mL of #132 to 50 mL of LC for each 5 L of MO."

Thanks for catching the typo.

 

[boxcartommie22]

i found that synergyn's oil treatment is an excellent additive..i like it alot better then the schaffers 132

 

[darrenc]

MoleKule....Ah Haaaa. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[MolaKule]

Boxcar,

Have you used both and done oil analysis using the same motor oil with the two different additives?

I would be interested in your UOA results.

 

[csandste]

That's exactly what I'd like to see for a wide variety of additives-- "with and without" oil analysis. Additive believers think the stuff works, additive agnostics use the snake oil description for almost all of them. Oil analysis would go a long way to settling some scores-- I'd even like to see someone throw some STP-like VI into some of these dino 5w30's as they begin to thin out at 3K.